That's a neat knot, frugal and attractive! I can't help the feeling I've seen it before, but can't find where just now.

As I continue to look, please tell me if I have the construction right. If I do, this is how I'd describe tying it:

Use the Standing Part (SPart - ABOK#28 ) to take a Single Turn (ABOK#40) over your Right hand, turning the SPart toward the fingers. Lead (guide, pass, reeve, take) the End around the "object" or make a "long enough" loop (ABOK#32) with the End. Lead the End directly through the first Turn, from fingers to palm. Turn the End around the doubled section of the first Turn, leading the End back through the first Turn and turning away from the subject loop. Hold the End & remove the fingers, hauling on the SPart to set the first Turn, the End to set the second, then tighten the Knot.

I would think this to be a "beginning" knot, as I'd rather take up the slack (i.e. tighten the rigging) on the "Bitter End"...

Corrections, please?? I like this knot & want to share it.

Thank you again!

Jimbo

Logged

Thank you all, for everything. As of 6/6/6, I have changed my password to a random string (which I forgot), thereby assuring that anyone posting as "Jimbo" in the future will NOT be me. Good luck!!!

The first is the collapsed Granny knot, the second is a 'quick to tie' fixing which is good when you have to tie hundreds of loops that are going to be sustained under tension.

Despite them both having a very Carrick like look about them, they are most definately NOT Carrick bends. All three knots have an overs index of 8 but the Carrick is fully 'saturated', that is, every time the cord crosses another, it changes its position from above to under or from under to above. The collapsed Granny and its close sister by contrast have an overs index of 8 but are only half saturated. Whereas the Carrick has 16 changes of position, these two knots only have eight. The difference is significant and the Carrick could never collapse to the knot you have depicted.

The problem with the collapsed Granny is that the end comes out on the loop side of the knot. This allows it to act as a bearing surface and movement causes the knot to roll up the loop.

Your photos are very detailed and I believe that this knot is the 'fast hitch' used to make simple loops intended to stay under tension.

Start as if you are going to make a bowline 'the proper way' - place the end on the Spart and twist to form a loop with the end coming up through the loop. Take the end over the loop crossover point, down and back up through the loop, but make sure that the end comes up through the loop on the Spart side of the loop - it could come up either to the right or the left of the end already coming through the loop. If it comes up the loop side of the hole it will be the collapsed Granny, if it comes up the Spart side of the hole it will be the 'quick loop knot'.

I am right handed and when I tie this knot it is a mirror image of the one you show. When I tie it left handed, it is an exact match. I have tried, but I cannot find a way to tie the Granny so that it will colapse to this configuration.

I believe that Jimbo and Willeke are right and I am going to weigh in on the side of a Single Carrick Bend (ABOK #1445) which Ashley calls the "the worst Single Carrick Bend" (p. 263) of the Carrick Bends. ABOK also includes Du Clairbois' (claimed) Single Carrick Bend (#1442), which Ashley describes as a Granny Knot (#80). Clearly, your photos have the tail projecting below the loop part instead of above, as happens when you tie the Granny Knot. Thanks for some interesting photos!

Ooops! Almost forgot - the unusual part that I see is that, in a Single Carrick Bend, standing parts and tails are normally acting together on both sides of the knot, and therefore should both be loaded (perhaps by seizing) whereas here only one SPart/WEnd are working in opposite directions around the loop of the other SPart, where that other SPart is part of the loop around the tree, while the last WEnd does nothing but hang in mid-air! Is that what you saw also?

Yep, that's it! I did a horizontal flip of your picture, and if we imagine the black Working End coming around and becoming the red Working End then the result is the same as in the pictures I posted.

Quote

As I continue to look, please tell me if I have the construction right. If I do, this is how I'd describe tying it:

Use the Standing Part (SPart - ABOK#28 ) to take a Single Turn (ABOK#40) over your Right hand, turning the SPart toward the fingers. Lead (guide, pass, reeve, take) the End around the "object" or make a "long enough" loop (ABOK#32) with the End. Lead the End directly through the first Turn, from fingers to palm. Turn the End around the doubled section of the first Turn, leading the End back through the first Turn and turning away from the subject loop. Hold the End & remove the fingers, hauling on the SPart to set the first Turn, the End to set the second, then tighten the Knot.

Yep, that's it! As long as the Working End turns around the doubled section of the first Turn in such a way that the Working End exits the first Turn closer to your right pinky finger (rather than your thumb), then the result is the same as in the pictures I posted. I suspect that's what you meant by, "turning away from the subject loop."

Quote

Start as if you are going to make a bowline 'the proper way' - place the end on the Spart and twist to form a loop with the end coming up through the loop. Take the end over the loop crossover point, down and back up through the loop, but make sure that the end comes up through the loop on the Spart side of the loop - it could come up either to the right or the left of the end already coming through the loop. If it comes up the loop side of the hole it will be the collapsed Granny, if it comes up the Spart side of the hole it will be the 'quick loop knot'.

I am right handed and when I tie this knot it is a mirror image of the one you show. When I tie it left handed, it is an exact match. I have tried, but I cannot find a way to tie the Granny so that it will colapse to this configuration.

Yep, that's it! When I use your Bowline method, I end up with a mirror-image of the knot in my pictures, just as you did. I see what you mean about the collapsed Granny, and it doesn't quite collapse to the same configuration as in my pictures (as you pointed out).

Quote

Your photos are very detailed and I believe that this knot is the 'fast hitch' used to make simple loops intended to stay under tension.

Yes, it looks like it was a quick-tie knot which was intended to stay under tension. The tree is a crepe myrtle which blew over a bit in some high winds several years ago, and the roots were partially exposed. A yard crew drove a metal stake into the ground and tied the tree to the stake with the knot shown in my pictures. In fact, the knot held just fine when Hurricane Rita came to Houston last year!

Quote

the unusual part that I see is that, in a Single Carrick Bend, standing parts and tails are normally acting together on both sides of the knot, and therefore should both be loaded (perhaps by seizing) whereas here only one SPart/WEnd are working in opposite directions around the loop of the other SPart, where that other SPart is part of the loop around the tree, while the last WEnd does nothing but hang in mid-air! Is that what you saw also?

That's right. If we snip the loop and then un-collapse the knot, it can be worked into a Carrick-like configuration as in Willeke's pictures (above). But the way that it is used in my pictures, the last Working End just sticks out in mid-air.

Good! That means I'm not the only one! Especially if I take the time to heave all the parts down nice & tight.

Quote

Any other suggestions?

How about:

The Crepe Bowline

The Frugal Splayed Loopknot

The Double Crossing Turns {Loopknot || Bend}

For the "leavers", the knots we have to leave behind (as on a bush or trellis or some such), this one is sweet! To me, it looks like it only eats about 8 diameters per turn, plus the End. If I must leave cordage behind, let it please be as little as possible, which means this knot, now. IMO, of course...

(Of course, in my opinion, every statement ever uttered by anyone must be prefaced by "In My Opinion"...)

Thanks again!

Logged

Thank you all, for everything. As of 6/6/6, I have changed my password to a random string (which I forgot), thereby assuring that anyone posting as "Jimbo" in the future will NOT be me. Good luck!!!

Uuummm - and why is it not the Single Carrick Bend still? I don't get it - just because it is tied around something differently, does it not still have the same number of overs and unders? I would really like to know why this is not the Single Carrick Bend still - what am I missing?

Takes on the form of a nice little Bowline Hitch ABook #1716 but with out the loop end going back in on itself. Which then brings me to a name of Bowline Bend Hitch.

Giving the fact in the picture that it has 2 bends and in order for it to sustain that hitch it would have to be kept under tension at a consistant value. At least that's what I am seeing in the picture. I am most likely wrong though.

Uuummm - and why is it not the Single Carrick Bend still? I don't get it - just because it is tied around something differently, does it not still have the same number of overs and unders? I would really like to know why this is not the Single Carrick Bend still - what am I missing?

I'm not able to check ABOK at the moment, but if the knot in my pictures truly has a Single Carrick configuration then it would seem reasonable to call it a Single Carrick Loop. Derek seems certain that it's not a Single Carrick, but I'm not able to verify that one way or the other at the moment...

Quote

Takes on the form of a nice little Bowline Hitch ABook #1716 but with out the loop end going back in on itself. Which then brings me to a name of Bowline Bend Hitch.

After reading Derek's description of tying this knot by starting with the beginnings of a Bowline, I toyed with some Bowline-esque names for the knot. However, there have been some discussions on this board about the huge number of knots with "Bowline" in their names, many of which are not necessarily Bowline-y enough to warrant the name. Therefore, it seemed best not to go in that direction unless this knot actually has enough Bowline-like properties to justify a "Bowline" name. Still, it might be a moot point if Lindsey and Willeke are right that it is essentially a Single Carrick Loop.

if the knot in my pictures truly has a Single Carrick configuration then it would seem reasonable to call it a Single Carrick Loop. Derek seems certain that it's not a Single Carrick, ...

Rather, Derek said (unqualified) "carrick", and must mean the usual one popularizedby that name--Ashley's #1439, "Full Carrick Bend".As others have noted/confirmed, the knot structure matches #1445, *A* SingleCarrick--emphasis for "one of several". So naming the knot after that similaritybegs the question Which S.C.?

Yes, there are a great many bogus "bowline" names; but, here, we have grounds IMHOfor using it: the loopknot has a binding/nipping loop--what I regard as the Bowline'sessence, it's determining characteristic (as such a simple knot, what else is there?!).

"Quick Bowline" comes to mind. To Google, this is a method for tying the Bwl.Maybe "Bightless Bwl" (which could no doubt be heard and reiterated as "ToothlessBwl" ).

This knot seems less stable than the "Bollard Loop" shown in km83:33 (whichis this same knot but the end's reentry to the knot being where this knot's endexits & vice versa). I regard that other loopknot as an "anti-bowline" in that ithas the nipping turn but the end reenters from the opposite side.(And which would equally lay claim to "Double Cross...".)

I went ahead and looked at G&H 4th edition. On page 36 Fig. 201: They mention "The Clinch Bowline". In looking at the picture of the tied knot, it looks like the knot we have been discussing here. I could be wrong. So if some one else has G&H 4th edition, please take a look also.